Graduate Training and Early Career Choices of Chemistry Doctorates

Cecilia H. Marzabadi, Susan A. Nolan, Janine P. Buckner & Valerie J. Kuck

Seton Hall University

Supporting transitions from graduate school to work force in academia

marzabce@shu.edu

According to the National Science and Technology Council (2000) Increasing demand for persons with

scientific, technical, and engineering (STEM) expertise

Yet…

Widening gap between the supply and demand. White males not pursuing degrees in these fields.

marzabce@shu.edu

Possible Solutions to Scientific Workforce Problem

Women large part of the pool of candidates in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields

Female degree recipients in STEM fields: ~ 50% of bachelor’s degrees ~ 34% of doctorates

But….they, don’t all make it into the workforce

marzabce@shu.edu

In Academic Chemistry

Institution-Type

Terminal Degree

Female Faculty

(% Full Time)

Ph.D. 13.3

M.S. 20.3

B.A./B.S. 26.1

2-year 31.7

ACS Women Chemists 2000

Percentage of Female, Full-Time Faculty Members

marzabce@shu.edu

Why aren’t women making it into the scientific workforce?

Look at graduates from top ranked chemistry departments.

Graduates from these “prestigious” institutions should have the most opportunities available to them !!! J. Chem. Ed. 2004, 81, 356-363

If disparities are seen at the top, how much greater is the disparity at less prestigious schools?

marzabce@shu.edu

This Study…..

We surveyed the PERCEPTIONS of now-graduated Ph.D. recipients (1988-1992) from top chemistry departments

Views of education, training, preparation

Undergraduate, graduate, post-doctoral levels

Experiences at first place of employment

marzabce@shu.edu

Demographics

Respondents (1,950 graduates): 315 men 135 women (30.0%)

Gender: 28.2% female1

Response rate: 27.3%

1 WebCASPAR

marzabce@shu.edu

Doctoral Universities of Graduates Polled (by NRC Rank-Order)

Univ. of California, Berkeley California Institute of Technology Harvard Univ. Stanford Univ. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology Cornell Univ. Columbia Univ. Univ. of Illinois Univ. of Wisconsin Chicago Univ.

Purdue Univ.

marzabce@shu.edu

Types of Questions Used Yes/No answer Open-ended responses A scale (1 through 7) was used for a number of

questions: 1 = very little, worse than, not at all, minor 4 = neutral, same as, neither worse than

nor better than 7 = a lot, better than, very much, very well,

major

marzabce@shu.edu

In Regards to Their Experiences in Graduate School……

Graduate school selection

Choice of dissertation advisor

Help/support from dissertation advisor

Interactions with dissertation advisor

marzabce@shu.edu

Graduate School Selection

No gender difference in chief criteria used:1. Reputation of department/school

2. Perceived environment

3. Geographical location

15% of the women and 8% of the men responded that they would not make the same choice of graduate school.

marzabce@shu.edu

Graduate School Findings-Choice of Dissertation Advisor

In identifying criteria used in making their advisor choice, men more often cited receiving the help of others.

A higher percentage of women reported that they: Would use different criteria in selecting their advisor Decided to change advisors (14% women vs. 8%

men)

marzabce@shu.edu

Graduate School Experience- Support of Dissertation Advisor

Men rated higher the help that they received from their dissertation advisor in: Knowing how to do independent research (5.0 vs

4.6) Properly evaluating data (5.3 vs 4.9) Knowing their research goals (5.3 vs 4.8) Overcoming research difficulties (4.9 vs 4.4) Understanding the balance between teaching and

research (4.3 vs 3.8) Working on a project that would have impact (4.9 vs

4.4)

marzabce@shu.edu

Graduate Research- Interactions with their Dissertation Advisor

Men rated higher the help offered in: Support of their careers goals (5.0 vs 4.6) Assistance in finding a job (4.8 vs 4.3)

Men gave higher marks (4.8 vs 4.4) to the quality of the interactions with their dissertation advisor.

marzabce@shu.edu

To Summarize… Pronounced gender patterns in a variety of mentoring experiences

Similar gendered patterns were also observed at post-doctoral level. Men felt more suported.

How does this data translate into career outcomes?

marzabce@shu.edu

With Respect to Employment in Academe…….

Percent applying for tenure-track positions at Ph.D.-granting institutions (~7 apps ea) Men – 35.2% Women – 25.9% (vs. 28.2% in pool)

Percent applying for tenure-track positions at non-Ph.D.-granting institutions Men – 27.6% (3.1 apps ea) Women – 34.1% (1.9 apps ea)

marzabce@shu.edu

Furthermore…

Men (56.0%) more likely to accept a position at a doctoral “extensive” school than were women (53.7%) 1

Conversely, women (23.8%) more likely than were men (17.8%) to accept a position at an “intensive” school

22.5% of female respondents were offered positions at Ph.D-granting schools but declined the offers

1Carnegie classifications

marzabce@shu.edu

Another way to look at academic job outcomes

WOMEN wound up in… Jobs at less prestigious Ph.D. granting

programs

BA level schools

Non-tenure track jobs at Ph.D. extensive schools

marzabce@shu.edu

Reasons Given for Not Applying for Tenure Track Position at Ph.D. Granting Schools 51 responses (29 women, 22 men) Pressure and lifestyle expectations (11 W,

9M) Not enough teaching; want more

interaction with students (10W, 4M) Not qualified enough (2W, 2M) Financial and other

marzabce@shu.edu

Where to next?

Can our understanding of these differing training perceptions and career choices translate into action?

Do these patterns extend to other STEM fields? (our “new” survey study—NSF funded)

marzabce@shu.edu

Acknowledgements

Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Special Grant Program in the Chemical Sciences (SG-02-072)

NSF (HRD- 0327904) Rohm & Haas Company Clare Boothe Luce Fund for a

Professorship for CM